Zero probability for Evolution

[ecco]

The catch 22 is this: when they come up with such theories and they have, the general scientific community will not take them seriously.

Please show one testable theory that has been proposed by creationists that was rejected by the scientific community.

Note: Assertions and Opinions are not testable theories. There is no reason to take Assertions and Opinions seriously.

Note: There is a difference between being rejected and being debunked. There are plenty of theories proposed by IDers that have been debunked.

Athiests are equally biased then. They would never acknowledge ID as a real theory even though there's plenty of evidence because thier religion won't allow it.

Please show some of this plentiful bounty of evidence.

Note: Asserting flowers are evidence of ID is not really evidence, it is opinion.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Please show one testable theory that has been proposed by creationists that was rejected by the scientific community.

There have been a bunch of peer reviewed articles on ID.

 

[ecco]

Please show one testable theory that has been proposed by creationists that was rejected by the scientific community.

There have been a bunch of peer reviewed articles on ID.

What is your problem? I asked you to "Please show one testable theory that has been proposed by creationists that was rejected by the scientific community."

Instead of being able to do that, you just say there are some at a Creationist site. Are you too lazy to go to the Creationist site, select one of your choosing and post it here?

If history is any guide, if I post one from a creationist site and show where it has been thoroughly debunked, I'll get accused of cherry-picking. Com'on, put in a little effort.


You also said there was plentiful evidence of ID. I responded:

Please show some of this plentiful bounty of evidence.

Note: Asserting flowers are evidence of ID is not really evidence, it is opinion.

I'm listening. You accused me of not listening. I'm listening. Once again, I'm hearing nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

The catch 22 is this: when they come up with such theories and they have, the general scientific community will not take them seriously.

Give an example.

 

[Polymath257]

Athiests are equally biased then. They would never acknowledge ID as a real theory even though there's plenty of evidence because thier religion won't allow it.

OK, make a prediction concerning a previously unknown result that is not also predicted by the standard theory. We can then do some observations and see which one wins.

I would point out that all proposed examples of irreducible complexity have been shown to be invalid with the originator even admitting he didn't do his homework before proposing them.

 

[Polymath257]

There have been a bunch of peer reviewed articles on ID.

Any that made testable predictions differing from the usual theory that were later verified?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Any that made testable predictions differing from the usual theory that were later verified?

With the exception of one article that dubiously made it into an established science journal, I am unaware of even one peer-review report demonstrating ID, let alone a bunch.

 

[Wildswanderer]

OK, make a prediction concerning a previously unknown result that is not also predicted by the standard theory. We can then do some observations and see which one wins.

I would point out that all proposed examples of irreducible complexity have been shown to be invalid with the originator even admitting he didn't do his homework before proposing them.

Not my field.
BTW you are totally wrong about the wolves. I talked to some life long wolf trappers about it. Yes there's a pecking order and yes, there's a dominant male. Saying it's not an alpha is just semantics.

 

[Polymath257]

Not my field.
BTW you are totally wrong about the wolves. I talked to some life long wolf trappers about it. Yes there's a pecking order and yes, there's a dominant male. Saying it's not an alpha is just semantics.

Wolf packs typically consist of *families*: two parents and their young. So, yes, the parents are dominant.

Now to the important part: do wolf packs have rules of conduct (morals)? Do they take care of their sick and injured? Are they punished when they step out of line?

Or is it just chaos?

 

[metis]

I hope they were okay with the path you took. My folks really questioned how they raised me because I didn't grow up to be a Christian.

Since my parents were staunch fundamentalist Protestants, they were not at all happy at first when I married a very devout Catholic-- until they got to know her. However, they never bought into the anti-science agenda of their church.

That's so cool!

Thank you.

 

[metis]

There have been a bunch of peer reviewed articles on ID.

There is not one shred of objective evidence for ID because it posits a god or gods and, frankly, we don't have any objectively-derived evidence for either. Instead, our theistic belief must come from other source(s).

 

[Wildswanderer]

There is not one shred of objective evidence for ID because it posits a god or gods and, frankly, we don't have any objectively-derived evidence for either. Instead, our theistic belief must come from other source(s).

That backward. If I enter a beautiful house I don't question whether there was an architect who created it. The evidence is everywhere and growing as so called science continues to get proven wrong about what we thought we knew.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Wolf packs typically consist of *families*: two parents and their young. So, yes, the parents are dominant.

Now to the important part: do wolf packs have rules of conduct (morals)? Do they take care of their sick and injured? Are they punished when they step out of line?

Or is it just chaos?

Rules of conduct are morals? But that what you argued against.
If rules equal morality then we have to have rules from the ultimate rule giver as humans to have objective morality.

 

[Polymath257]

That backward. If I enter a beautiful house I don't question whether there was an architect who created it. The evidence is everywhere and growing as so called science continues to get proven wrong about what we thought we knew.

But that's because we know human architects design houses.

if you walked into a beautiful cave, you would WOULD question whether an architect designed it. We know caves form naturally. And we even know the processes by which they form.

Do complex systems form naturally? yes. Can we distinguish the systems that form naturally from those that are designed? often.

So, what *specific* evidence do you have that the universe (or anything not made by a biological entity, like an ant colony) was designed? Give a comparison between what would be expected naturally (and justify that expectation) and show that the reality is different than that expectation.

 

[Polymath257]

Rules of conduct are morals? But that what you argued against.
If rules equal morality then we have to have rules from the ultimate rule giver as humans to have objective morality.

No, rules of conduct are determined by biology and history, not by a law giver. No 'ultimate rule giver' is required: only different survival rates based on different rule systems. The one promoting survival (of the population) are the ones that are moral.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, rules of conduct are determined by biology and history, not by a law giver. No 'ultimate rule giver' is required: only different survival rates based on different rule systems. The one promoting survival (of the population) are the ones that are moral.

Lol, that makes morality completely subjective. If my tribes survival is ensured by killing you, it would be the moral thing to do. If you are weak, this is especially true because we would not want your weak genes to weaken the entire tribe.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But that's because we know human architects design houses.

if you walked into a beautiful cave, you would WOULD question whether an architect designed it. We know caves form naturally. And we even know the processes by which they form.

Do complex systems form naturally? yes. Can we distinguish the systems that form naturally from those that are designed? often.

So, what *specific* evidence do you have that the universe (or anything not made by a biological entity, like an ant colony) was designed? Give a comparison between what would be expected naturally (and justify that expectation) and show that the reality is different than that expectation.

You are missing the big picture. How can an ant design anything if it's not designed itself? Or a beaver? Nothing that operates with that level of precision came about by accident.

Not to mention that the laws of the universe are necessary for life to exist. But they aren’t sufficient to explain how life came about. The origin of life requires a massive infusion of information, which can only be explained by intelligent design.

And then there's your own body.

"T]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.… Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts."
(U.S. National Academy of Sciences Bruce Albert)

 

[metis]

That backward. If I enter a beautiful house I don't question whether there was an architect who created it. The evidence is everywhere and growing as so called science continues to get proven wrong about what we thought we knew.

"Everywhere" does not need an "intelligent designer" as there are combinations of micro and mega-matter that both combine and break apart, thus somethings must exist and also with some discernable patterns.

So, let me ask you this question: What objective evidence can you show us that there is only the one God that you and I believe in? How do you know there are not thousands? or millions? How do you know that a god or gods created all? Were you there to see it for yourself?

Again, there is no scientific evidence for a god or gods, so you're barking up the wrong tree. But, imo, where the right "tree" is deals with the power of the Holy Spirit that we can tap into, thus that's where our "proof" lies. Even though we cannot see the HS, we should be able to "feel" the HS-- what some call the "Inner Light" that God has given us.

 

[ratiocinator]

You are missing the big picture. How can an ant design anything if it's not designed itself? Or a beaver? Nothing that operates with that level of precision came about by accident.

Either this applies equally to your god, you'll need special pleading, or we're off into an infinite regress.

Not to mention that the laws of the universe are necessary for life to exist. But they aren’t sufficient to explain how life came about. The origin of life requires a massive infusion of information, which can only be explained by intelligent design.

You really should give this plagiarism up. It's blindingly obvious now when you're not using your own words (they show slightly more sophistication and understanding than you've shown yourself). Changing a few words doesn't help.

The laws of the universe are necessary for life to exist. But they aren’t sufficient to explain how life arose. The origin of life requires a massive infusion of information, which can only be explained by intelligent design.

-- The Top Six Lines of Evidence for Intelligent Design​

"T]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.… Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts."
(U.S. National Academy of Sciences Bruce Albert)

And you got this quote from the same page.

 

[tas8831]

Lol, that's a stretch! Accidental sure doesn't mean another outcome was expected. In this context it means random.

Define random in this context.
After you define "information."

And then, for kicks, define "plagiarism."